Veritas report due tomorrow (Thursday) at midday re: Aimee Challenor

Beatrix Campbell article today:
GREEN PARTY GETS CHILD ABUSE REPORT IT PAID FOR

concludes:
"The Challenor case is to be investigated by the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, which is inquiring into how institutions, including political parties, have dealt with child sexual abuse.

Trans cult

It should consider what the Green Party's head honchos have not: whether there was a ‘conducive context’ in the organisation. That would help address larger questions about the heavy promotion of Aimee Challenor, a young and vulnerable trans activist, a Green candidate and leadership contender, Stonewall advisory panellist and Coventry Pride trustee, all before the age of 20.

Both David and Aimee were associated with the triumph of extreme transgender ideology in the Green Party, both initiated virulent techniques to block en massesocial media critics, particularly feminists. Aimee Challenor initiated a crusade to silence and punish Sheffield Green activist and feminist, Andy Healey, a dj and youth worker who was alive to safeguarding concerns. Challenor succeeded in getting him suspended from the party.

The vilification of Andy Healey attracted the endorsement of Amelia Womack (now deputy leader) who supported Challenor’s efforts to make him shut up, and Sian Berry (now-co-leader) who in December 2017 boasted on Twitter that she had blocked him. Both erased their tweets after David Challenor’s conviction. Both have some apologising to do.

The Independent Inquiry might explore the impact of extreme trans dogma and bullying on the party’s capacity to think,not least about power, democracy, safety, good manners and madness.

It is said that the party couldn’t afford to expand the Verita brief. But it has spent nearly £40,000 of members’ money – funds the party can ill-afford – on a report that offers no analysis of its ramshackle but bullying structure and the tyranny of the trans cult. What the report does do, however, is let the leadership off the hook.

The Independent Inquiry might also consider the wider ‘interests’ of the Challenors: Aimee Challenor declined to confirm or deny involvement with ‘furry’ networks that fetishise fluffy animals and adult-infant scenarios:

kiwifarms.net/threads/aimee-challenor-ashton-lucas-david-challenor.47181/

Although the Verita inquiry was given information about all this, the report does not address it – apparently, beyond its brief.

Furry things

However, forensic party members – and others – have been tracking these connections for a while. Why, they wonder, did David Challenor dub himself ‘Baloo’ bear? Why did his teenage child link up with furry networks? www.vanityfair.com/culture/2001/03/furries20010 . Is the furry world’s fetishism a risk to children? What are the implications of the links swirling around social media between furry networks and ‘minor attracted persons’ (the current nomenclature for paedopiles)?

These questions are engaging the minds of party members who have felt alienated and silenced by the biology-defying mantra that ‘a trans woman is a woman’ (not a trans woman) and the doctrine that to debate gender ‘self-identification’ at all is transphobic.

The cruel irony is that while the perils assailing the planet are the zeitgeist, the Greens profile is wobbly and the party can’t achieve its project to break through the first-past-the-post electoral system.

The party’s internal complaints system is still jammed by demands for the expulsion of heretics. This has simultaneously cost a fortune in person-time and resources – a huge issue for a small and scarcely solvent party - and it has subdued inner-party democracy: disagreement is besieged by complaints processes that have been refined and ratcheted up by the trans lobby in the past year.

North Surrey Green activist and feminist Olivia Palmer has been expelled. And several party members - including me and prominent London Green Shahrar Ali - are wondering why demands for our expulsions, initiated by trans advocates, are still lumbering through the system. Why are they wasting our time, why are they even being considered?

All is not lost

The trans hegemony met an unprecedented mutiny at the party’s 2018 autumn conference in Bristol. Clare Lorraine Phipps’ management of the Green Women’s Group - a master class in bullying-by-chaos – provoked outrage. Now Phipps has been suspended over the Challenor case. So, too (for different reasons) her aide de camp Kirsty Jones.

Late resolutions were submitted urging a review of the party’s toxic gender politics and the culture of bullying. Usually, haggling over standing orders committee rulings is a minority sport, but this time these motions went all the way to a packed plenary meeting of almost everyone at the conference, where highly respected Green Party activists Chris Holt and Theo Simon eloquently commended them for debate. They won the vote. But conference organisers ensured that time ran out.

Nevertheless, it was a stinging rebuke to the trans orthodoxy and a warning that many Greens have had enough of authoritarianism and flat-earthism. It’s just beginning."

www.byline.com/column/85/article/2394

Gay people = persecuted therefore we should not scrutinise them. Trans people = even more persecuted and therefore are obviously more vulnerable than any other groups so we shouldn't even think of scrutiny never mind subject them to it. Cos the mean thought of scrutiny is discriminatory.

Just as in the past some people were seen as beyond scrutiny as they were priests, doctors or 'national treasures'

One of the first principles of effective Safeguarding is to recognise that no-one should ever be beyond scrutiny and that anything that prevents scrutiny should be a massive red flag.
RTB and R0 this is spot on.
The prison analogy is a good one. Look at Sharm el Sheikh airport. Staff were supposed to submit to screening, but in fact charged passengers £20 to circumvent security. End result: bomb on a plane. Similar at Mogadishu. Correct processes not followed: bomb on plane.
Each of those prison staff is safer for having to submit to screening, it means they can't have their family held prisoner by some gangster and be forced to smuggle something in.
Likewise safeguarding checks, policies etc applying to everyone keep staff safe too. There's no excuse for the kind of corner cutting we've seen. Feelings shouldn't come into it.

There are loads more. Our school isn’t on it thank goodness although ferret and toad were in to do a talk.

Speaking of people who are doing all sorts of ‘useful’ work with haha ‘charities’...

Witch hunts/scapegoating by politicians, media and social media distracts from focussing on the location of the risk which in turn also impacts the Safeguarding of children and vulnerable adults.

THIS, THIS, THIS!

People say that about health and safety stuff too.

They seem to have completely forgotten how useful it’s been for solving all sorts of little problems like, oh, I don’t know - not having a fatal accident in the workplace 🙄

Safeguarding generally will provoke groans if you say you have to go to a training session about it.

Its seen as too much paper work and makes it difficult to do fun things.

YY this contributes to systemic failures.
Many policies and training are not fit for purpose.

If people don't understand or cannot use policies the Safeguarding framework is compromised.

Indeed.

Gay people = persecuted therefore we should not scrutinise them. Trans people = even more persecuted and therefore are obviously more vulnerable than any other groups so we shouldn't even think of scrutiny never mind subject them to it. Cos the mean thought of scrutiny is discriminatory.

Just as in the past some people were seen as beyond scrutiny as they were priests, doctors or 'national treasures'

One of the first principles of effective Safeguarding is to recognise that no-one should ever be beyond scrutiny and that anything that prevents scrutiny should be a massive red flag.

This thread is brilliant.

The breadth of experience and knowledge of safeguarding frameworks is obvious.

I hope all political parties (and indeed, all community groups who rely on adult volunteers/small businesses whose employees are even slightly likely to interact with children and young people and/or vulnerable adults) are paying attention.

Safeguarding policy has been twisted to centre those who are under scrutiny who are innocent rather than those who are most vulnerable.

Forgotten in this picture is how this is a balancing act, and how if you don't do that, those under scrutiny who are guilty are free to harm those who are most vulnerable.

It's a focus shift. Because of people thinking they are better than others and above scrutiny because of a black and white political thinking.

Gay people = persecuted therefore we should not scrutinise them. Trans people = even more persecuted and therefore are obviously more vulnerable than any other groups so we shouldn't even think of scrutiny never mind subject them to it. Cos the mean thought of scrutiny is discriminatory.

When in actual fact its a teeny bit more complex than that.

How did we get to the place where safeguarding is seen in the same light as requiring kids to wear goggles to play conkers (I know that's probably an apopcryphal story, but you know what I mean)

Its very similar to the formation of beliefs that the EU have policies prohibiting straight bananas.

As part of my work I draw up and regularly review risks. I do this on a blanket set set of assumptions that errors happen and I try to design my systems so that as many of those risks as possible CANNOT happen. Where that’s not possible, I design them so that certain procedures apply to everyone so that the risk is reduced as much as possible and if it happens it’s picked up as quickly as possible. Every breach, fuck up or error triggers a dispassionate, blame free review.

This is also how effective Safeguarding frameworks should exist.
The function of Safeguarding is to centre the needs of the children or vulnerable adults who the farmework and policies are designed to protect.

When there is a major incident eg the abuse and deaths of Maria Colwell,Victoria Climbie, Holly Wells and Jessicca Chapman, Peter Connolly the ensuing reviews led to significant understandings of the framework failings and therefore potentially more robust Child Protection and Safeguarding informed by legislation.

NSPCC History of Child Protection:
1945
The first formal child death inquiry in England was the Curtis Committee Report into the death of Dennis O'Neill, who was killed at the age of 12 by his foster father.

1973
The death of 7-year-old Maria Colwell led to the establishment of our modern child protection system.

1984
Further changes were prompted partly by the inquiries into several other child deaths, including 4-year-old Jasmine Beckford.

1989
The Children Act 1989 established the legislative framework for the current child protection system in England and Wales.

1995
The Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 and the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 established the legislative framework for the current child protection systems in Northern Ireland and Scotland.

2000
The death of 8-year-old Victoria Climbie led to Lord Laming’s report (2003) which led to sweeping changes to the way children's services were structured in England and Wales.

2001
The Children's Commissioner for Wales Act 2001 created the first children’s commissioner post in the UK.

2002
The deaths of 10-year-olds Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman in Soham led to the strengthening of legislation across the UK to protect children from adults who pose a risk to them.

2004
The Children Act 2004, informed by Lord Laming’s report, established a Children’s Commissioner in England (the last of the UK nations to appoint one); created Local Safeguarding Children's Boards (LSCBs) in England and Wales; and placed a duty on local authorities in England to appoint a director of children’s services and an elected lead member for children’s services, who is ultimately accountable for the delivery of services.

2006
Scotland the Minister for Children published a review of the Children’s Hearing System, entitled Getting it right for every child (Creegan, C., Henderson, G., and King, C., 2006), highlighting a dramatic increase in identified children with multiple needs.

2008
The death of 1-year-old Peter Connelly led to further reviews of social service care in England by Lord Laming, with the House of Commons debating the case.

2009
Lord Laming’s The protection of children in England: a progress report (2009), ordered following the Peter Connelly case, makes 58 recommendations for child protection reforms.

2010
The new Secretary of State for Education, Michael Gove, commissioned Professor Eileen Munro to conduct an independent review of child protection in England.

2010
Minister for Children and Families Tim Loughton announced that Local Safeguarding Boards in England should publish the overview report and executive summary of all case reviews initiated on or after 10 June 2010.

2011
Professor Munro’s report A child-centred system (2011) set out recommendations to “help to reform the child protection system from being over-bureaucratised and concerned with compliance to one that keeps a focus on children, checking whether they are being effectively helped, and adapting when problems are identified”.

The Safeguarding Board Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 set out the law for the creation of a new regional Safeguarding Board for Northern Ireland and the establishment of five Safeguarding Panels.

2012
Operation Yewtree was set up to investigate sexual abuse allegations against Jimmy Saville and others.

2013
The Independent review into child sexual exploitation in Rochdale examined the council’s response to issues around child sexual exploitation.

2013
A new version of Working Together to Safeguard Children was published in England, informed by the Munro review.

2014
The Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014 provided Wales with its own legislative framework for social services for children and adults.

Under Section 145 it gives powers to Welsh Ministers to issue codes of practice providing guidance, objectives and requirements on local authorities’ provision of social services.

2015
The Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse in England and Wales (IICSA) officially launched to consider the growing evidence of institutional failures to protect children from child sexual abuse.

The Children’s Services Co-operation Act (Northern Ireland) 2015 requires public authorities to contribute to the wellbeing of children and young people in regards to physical and mental health, learning and achievement and living conditions.

2016
The Football Association (FA) launched an internal review into child abuse following allegations of child abuse. The Scottish FA announced an independent inquiry.

2017
The Digital Economy Act 2017 extended protection from online pornography by allowing sites which display pornography to children to be blocked in the UK.

2018
An updated version of Working together to safeguard children (Department for Education, 2018) was published for England, replacing LSCBs with safeguarding partner arrangements."
learning.nspcc.org.uk/child-protection-system/history-of-child-protection-in-the-uk/

There will always be risk and tragic incidents however each time the framework is reviewed there is the opportunity to strengthen the protections for children and vulnerable adults.

The courts responsibility is to prosecute those responsible for the abuse and serious harm eg the perpetrators.

Witch hunts/scapegoating by politicians, media and social media distracts from focussing on the location of the risk which in turn also impacts the Safeguarding of children and vulnerable adults.

Putting some people above suspicion in such a process also makes them targets for others to use.

YYYY - very much this too

How did we get to the place where safeguarding is seen in the same light as requiring kids to wear goggles to play conkers (I know that's probably an apopcryphal story, but you know what I mean)? Did we get relaxed after Soham, in a way that we never got relaxed after Dunblane? Why?

I feel that the answer to this is the same as "why have transgender issues risen so fast and to the point that anyone not fully on board with TWAW is a hateful bigot"

Safeguarding generally will provoke groans if you say you have to go to a training session about it.

Its seen as too much paper work and makes it difficult to do fun things.

People seem to view 'safegarding' as a bit of a 'elf and safety' comment - ie clutching pearls, knickers twisted, looking for issues and danger where none exist - rules for rules''sake.

Safeguarding shouldnt, cannot be politicised. It’s got to apply to everyone.

As part of my work I draw up and regularly review risks. I do this on a blanket set set of assumptions that errors happen and I try to design my systems so that as many of those risks as possible CANNOT happen. Where that’s not possible, I design them so that certain procedures apply to everyone so that the risk is reduced as much as possible and if it happens it’s picked up as quickly as possible. Every breach, fuck up or error triggers a dispassionate, blame free review.

I’ve worked at a company where the process was turned from blame free (blame only assigned with deliberate negligence not error) anonymous reporting to effectively a political system where blame was assigned. The system broke down within a few months and the error rate rose hugely - as this is a patient facing job, it has real life implications.

All political slant has to be discarded. Safeguarding frameworks apply to everyone. The people who assign blame are the courts.

We are seeing a move to politicisation and trial by social media - look what’s happening because of it.

he explained that security systems are safest when everyone goes through the same basic procedure, and no-one is deemed OK "because you know who they are and that they wouldn't do anything bad". There are no aspersions to be cast on requiring certain members of staff to be checked, because everyone is checked. The fact of the universal process reduces the risk

Exactly this.
Safeguarding is not about working out who are the 'good people who can be trusted' and who are 'bad/evil people who must be locked up'

The majority of Safeguarding risks are not those caused by determined dangerous predators though they will always seek to exploit loopholes.

The framework demonstrated in this example is not just the security check procedure but and more importantly the understanding and organisational ethos as demonstrated by the governor's actions and explanation.
It is seen working effectively by Olennas response.

The fact of the universal process reduces the risk that someone would be tempted to do something dangerous.

Putting some people above suspicion in such a process also makes them targets for others to use.

My personal "light bulb moment" came during a visit to a prison many years ago. I was being accompanied by the governor, and he showed me where and how to go through the security check procedure (bag removed; full metal scanner; pat down; shoe examination etc). After I had been cleared, he went through the same process.

I commented about being surprised that the man in charge of the establishment wasn't trusted enough not to need to go through the process, and he explained that security systems are safest when everyone goes through the same basic procedure, and no-one is deemed OK "because you know who they are and that they wouldn't do anything bad". There are no aspersions to be cast on requiring certain members of staff to be checked, because everyone is checked. The fact of the universal process reduces the risk that someone would be tempted to do something dangerous. And someone who complains about the process isn't someone that you want in your establishment anyway

For "security inside a prison", replace with "keeping vulnerable children and adults safe from those who might do them harm"

It is a framework operated by people. An organisation consisting of people who are intending to harm children and people who are indifferent to harming children cannot protect children. The best and most rigorous safeguarding framework fails if all the people operating it are unwilling to confront potential risks. I struggle to understand how that makes me “political”. Merely saying that safeguarding has to be sceptical, with which I wholeheartedly agree, does not help when the people operating a safeguarding system are not in any way sceptical.

Safeguarding is neither political nor ideological. It is neither pro-TRA nor GC. It is neither left wing nor right wing.

It is a framework designed to protect the vulnerable and is therefore sceptical of everything: people and ideology alike.

This ^^

You are also demonstrating a failure to understand Safeguarding.

Yes. Please be careful, everyone. ReflectentMonatomism is attempting to politicise safeguarding frameworks, presumably in service of their own political world view.

Safeguarding is neither political nor ideological. It is neither pro-TRA nor GC. It is neither left wing nor right wing.

It is a framework designed to protect the vulnerable and is therefore sceptical of everything: people and ideology alike.

Lisa Muggeridge:

'What Safeguarding is: where we are and what we have done.'

Girlguides: Grooming, Helen Watts and what is in plain sight.

Safeguarding risks are particularly acute in unstructured environments where interactions with vulnerable people are unregulated, unlike environmentssuch as schools where interactions are carefully managed.

Liz Kelly about the conducive context of violence against women and girls.

The precariat status of so many people possibly underpins the sense of hopelessness and feeling that it's impossible to engage with what's happening even when our civic rights and freedoms are in jeopardy and it's happening in plain sight.

This analytic lens also clarified that no amount of ‘awareness raising’ would dissuade desperate people from risking their lives and freedom. Rather than focusing, as much anti-trafficking prevention does, on the supposed naivety of individuals and the unscrupulous individuals and networks who are hidden under the concept of ‘organised crime’, it was necessary to analyse and understand the interconnecting social, political and economic conditions within which exploitative operators profit from the misfortunes of others.
...
Feminists have long noted that certain contexts are conducive to VAW: the family; institutions; conflict and transition; public space and more recently online environments. What is less common is exploration, at a theoretical level, of what connects them, what makes these spaces ones in which men are enabled to abuse women and girls.
...
Other conducive contexts where these conditions apply include residential and locked institutions: children’s homes, mental hospitals, prisons, police stations have all been identified as spaces in which violence is commonplace and is all too often tolerated. Institutionalised gendered power relations can also be identified in educational institutions, faith organisations and workplaces: all are contexts where men’s status and authority, rather than inducing an ethic of care, can be used by abusive men to intimidate and silence.

discoversociety.org/2016/03/01/theorising-violence-against-women-and-girls/